At 4:45 PM -0400 5/18/04, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: >There's something weird about this concept. > >One of the criteria for reducing the spectrum assigned to >broadcast TV, I thought, was that the tabboo rules in >place since NTSC, particularly wrt UHF, can now be >greatly reduced. And too, I thought, ATSC stations >can exist in adjacent channels with NTSC stations, so >even more so with other ATSC stations. That was even >supposed to be one of the advantages of having a 8-VSB, >with its low peak to average ratio. Careful here. REDUCED is the operative word; as long as we persist in using big high powered sticks, we will need to protect the taboo channels in adjacent markets. The shift to digital transmission has made it possible to squeeze in more channels with minimal interference into the NTSC service; it's is a very tight fit, and we are learning that it will not work as well as advertised when all of the DTV transmitters are operated at the full authorized power levels. > >So while this concept of allowing non-TV RF users to >pick up unused bands might be technically valid, it >should be also legally and technically possible for >broadcasters to install more OTA stations, and use >the spectrum they were assigned more completely? Only with properly designed, spectrally efficient networks. If we stay the course, these alternative, very low power uses of the taboo channels will continue to be the only viable option. > >The question then would be, what would existing OTA >broadcasters prefer? Non-TV squatters on their spectrum, >or more OTA competition? Uhhhhh. NEITHER! Protecting the status quo is the whole point of this farce that we are calling a DTV transition. Regards Craig ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.